James Albert and Beverly Alderman - Page 16

                                       - 15 -                                         
          no showing that equivalent costs would not have been incurred for           
          nonmedical reasons.  Even absent Mr. Alderman’s sight disability,           
          an identical scenario could have ensued if the spouses owned only           
          one car.  Moreover, two cars might not have reduced overall                 
          expenses in light of the outlays for the second automobile,                 
          insurance, taxes, tags, licenses, maintenance, and repairs.                 
          Thus, while the Court sympathizes with the hardships experienced            
          by petitioners in enabling Mr. Alderman to engage in his                    
          important work as a math teacher, allowing a medical expense                
          deduction in these circumstances would be contrary to the                   
          applicable section 213 rules.4                                              

               4 Having obviously expended significant time and effort                
          researching the issue, petitioners on brief cite a number of                
          revenue rulings, e.g., Rev. Rul. 83-33, 1983-1 C.B. 70; Rev. Rul.           
          71-48, 1971-1 C.B. 99; Rev. Rul. 70-606, 1970-2 C.B. 66; Rev.               
          Rul. 67-76, 1967-1 C.B. 70; and Rev. Rul. 66-80, 1966-1 C.B. 57,            
          as well as others.  However, all of these rulings appear to be              
          consistent with the above-discussed standards, most deal with               
          issues involving the deductibility of various capital                       
          expenditures, and none hold or suggest that the costs of                    
          commuting to and from an individual’s place of business should              
          qualify under sec. 213.  For instance, Rev. Rul. 66-80, supra,              
          1966-1 C.B. 57, sanctioned deduction of costs for equipment to              
          adapt an automobile for handicapped use but warned:                         
                    However, irrespective of the physical condition of                
               the individual, the costs of operating the automobile,                 
               as a means of transportation that is not primarily for                 
               and essential to medical care, are not allowable                       
               medical expense deductions within the limitations of                   
               section 213 of the Code.  For example, costs of                        
               commuting to or from the individual’s place of business                
               or employment are nondeductible personal expenses. * *                 
               *                                                                      
                                                             (continued...)           





Page:  Previous  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011